I'm working on a Green Party City Council campaign in Brooklyn and we're in the signature gathering phase. 'More fun than humans are allowed to have', as my ex-wife was fond of saying of odious tasks. But while we are gathering signatures to be on the ballot for the general election, the Democrates have been gathering signatures to be on the ballot for their primary, which preceeds the general election by almost two months. Now I find it odd that the number of signatures they are required to obtain FOR THEIR PRIMARY is set by law. Why is it a function of governmental legistation how a political party chooses it's nominee to be on the ballot? And why is there a discrepancy between the number of signatures we have to collect and that they have to collect (we need three times the number they do)? The government should set a standard, applicable to all, to be on the ballot for the general election. Period.
In fact, why do we, the general public, PAY for their primary? And yes, we DO pay for their primary. The voting machines are re-set, (programed now) delivered, off-loaded, set up, and 'personed' at tax-payer expense--and that comes to MILLIONS of dollars here in NYC. Plus, in NYC, the locations are almost all public buildings--used free of charge by the political parties for their primaries.
Now, I don't have a problem with the idea of a primary, or even with the public's equipment and locations being used for a primary. But why are WE paying for it, rather than the Democratic Party? (The Republicans are in such a minority here that they have a hard time getting people to run and so don't generally have primaries in NYC.) There are a number of ways to choose your candidate, the primary being one--and perhaps the most 'democratic'--but why is the general public called on to PAY for the way in which the Democrats choose the candidates they're going to run in the general election?
There are other models. Think of the Iowa caucuses. That doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. There are a HECK of a lot of us that are not registered in either of the major political parties, and yet, when it comes to the parties choosing the candidates they're gonna run in the general election, WE have to pay for it.
If the major parties want to use public facilities and equipment to hold their primaries, then they should be charged market rate for the use of that equipment and those locations. It certainly shouldn't come from the public coffers.
Jonathan Fluck
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
CRIME IS GOOD
It has been many a moon since I have posted anything on this blog (which I co-founded). Why? Well, it's not because there is little to emote about. Simply, it is because the life of a teacher, writer, and married man can be a complex and time consuming one. But in my few free moments, I have been watching the passing political parade. While there are many fascinating things going on for a slightly right-of-center soul such as yours truly to examine, what has grabbed my attention has been the recent activity in the northeast (most notably in the People's Republic of New York) to turn back the clock on anti-crime measures and welcome criminals back into our neighborhoods. Sadly, many of our politicians really, truly do not see danger coming from the barrels of guns. From gun manufacturers, yes. But from those who illegally own and use those guns (and knives too), no way.
A month or so ago the New York State Legislature (controlled completely by the Democratic Party) voted to repeal the famous (or infamous) Rockefeller Drugs Laws. These laws had always been controversial. Passed in the early 1970s, when it seemed little could stem the tide of drug crime, these laws took power away from judges and gave it to district attorneys. The laws were tough. But the early 1970s were tough times. Crime was rising in New York City before the laws were passed,and continued to rise for many years onward. Thus, it has been said by some fairminded observers that the Rockefeller Laws had only a moderate impact on the drug trade. Nevertheless, over time many drug dealers were put away, and for ever growing sentences. For the left, however, these laws represented all that was bad in the criminal justice world. This was because the laws were predicated on the notion that drug crime was, in fact, crime. Drug use was not simply an illness that was to be treated by detox and counseling. It was illegal and it should be punished. Some of the harsher aspects of the laws were changed a few years ago, but after November 2006, when the Democrats took over the State Senate (the legislative body that protected the bulk of the Rockefeller laws), it was only a matter of time before the laws were ripped from the books. Once the repeal was passed, Governor David Patterson signed the bill, over the objection of most New York State D.A.s, and some of the press. Although The New York Times couldn't wait for the repeal, the Daily News returned from the dead and recommended the repeal be called "the drug dealer protection act."
The same movement can be seen in Connecticut, the Nutmeg State, where both house of the state legislature repealed capital punishment. Now, Connecticut hasn't executed anyone in...well, I truly can't say. But the Democrats who run both house of the legislature decided that even the threat of execution for, say, multiple rape-murderers, child killers, or cop killers, was just too much for them. Thankfully, Connecticut has a moderate Republican governor, Jodi Rell, who was quoted as saying she would veto the repeal as soon as it hit her desk.
Over the last twenty years crime rates have fallen throughout our nation, especially in the northeast and midwest, areas that were thought unsalvagable in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Crime rates went down for many reasons, but one major reason was stronger anti-crime laws, stonger prison sentences, and the presence of greater and greater numbers of smarter, younger, and highly motivated police officers on our streets. The far left has never liked this reality. Oh, the left is against crime. Left wing politicians and activists simply don't want to do anything serious to stop crime. That is because, even after all the bad years, and twenty or so good years, they still see criminals as victims of society. Sounds trite, but it's true. That's not to say that left-leaning office holders have not come up with positive anti-crime measures. Bill Clinton's cime bill of the mid-1990s put more cops on the streets. And David Dinkins second police commissioner, Ray Kelly, (who has been Michael Bloomberg's first and only police commissioner) was instrumental in beefing up police tactics last in the Dinkins Adminstration. But, as New York Magazine journalist Chris Smith writes in the current issue, Dinkins and his crowd never warmed to these aggressive tactics. No surprise there. It took Rudy Giuliani to change things, and Michael Bloomberg to keep the changes in place, and even improve upon them.
With the Republican Party is disarray, with the followers of Dick Cheney writing Colin Powell and his moderate followers out of the party, (and Powell standing up to them and promising to fight for control of the G.O.P.), Republican activists might rally round the anti-crime cause as one that can bring both wings of the party together. It was moderate Republicans like Giuliani, Bloomberg, George Pataki, Tom Kean, William Weld, and, yes, Nelson Rockefeller, who did their best to stand up to the leftist ethos, and were quite successful in turning the tide against crime. Their successes, which allowed the voting public to turn away from the crime issue, have made it possible for the Democrats to rout the G.O.P. in the northeast on issues such as the economy, abortion, and stem cell research. I don't want a new crime wave to be the harbinger of a Republican revival, but I fear that if we are not careful, and new crime wave is what we will get because of the mindset and the resulting legislative actions of Democrats in the northeast. If that occurs then all of us, Republican and Democrat, will be in trouble.
John Attanas
A month or so ago the New York State Legislature (controlled completely by the Democratic Party) voted to repeal the famous (or infamous) Rockefeller Drugs Laws. These laws had always been controversial. Passed in the early 1970s, when it seemed little could stem the tide of drug crime, these laws took power away from judges and gave it to district attorneys. The laws were tough. But the early 1970s were tough times. Crime was rising in New York City before the laws were passed,and continued to rise for many years onward. Thus, it has been said by some fairminded observers that the Rockefeller Laws had only a moderate impact on the drug trade. Nevertheless, over time many drug dealers were put away, and for ever growing sentences. For the left, however, these laws represented all that was bad in the criminal justice world. This was because the laws were predicated on the notion that drug crime was, in fact, crime. Drug use was not simply an illness that was to be treated by detox and counseling. It was illegal and it should be punished. Some of the harsher aspects of the laws were changed a few years ago, but after November 2006, when the Democrats took over the State Senate (the legislative body that protected the bulk of the Rockefeller laws), it was only a matter of time before the laws were ripped from the books. Once the repeal was passed, Governor David Patterson signed the bill, over the objection of most New York State D.A.s, and some of the press. Although The New York Times couldn't wait for the repeal, the Daily News returned from the dead and recommended the repeal be called "the drug dealer protection act."
The same movement can be seen in Connecticut, the Nutmeg State, where both house of the state legislature repealed capital punishment. Now, Connecticut hasn't executed anyone in...well, I truly can't say. But the Democrats who run both house of the legislature decided that even the threat of execution for, say, multiple rape-murderers, child killers, or cop killers, was just too much for them. Thankfully, Connecticut has a moderate Republican governor, Jodi Rell, who was quoted as saying she would veto the repeal as soon as it hit her desk.
Over the last twenty years crime rates have fallen throughout our nation, especially in the northeast and midwest, areas that were thought unsalvagable in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Crime rates went down for many reasons, but one major reason was stronger anti-crime laws, stonger prison sentences, and the presence of greater and greater numbers of smarter, younger, and highly motivated police officers on our streets. The far left has never liked this reality. Oh, the left is against crime. Left wing politicians and activists simply don't want to do anything serious to stop crime. That is because, even after all the bad years, and twenty or so good years, they still see criminals as victims of society. Sounds trite, but it's true. That's not to say that left-leaning office holders have not come up with positive anti-crime measures. Bill Clinton's cime bill of the mid-1990s put more cops on the streets. And David Dinkins second police commissioner, Ray Kelly, (who has been Michael Bloomberg's first and only police commissioner) was instrumental in beefing up police tactics last in the Dinkins Adminstration. But, as New York Magazine journalist Chris Smith writes in the current issue, Dinkins and his crowd never warmed to these aggressive tactics. No surprise there. It took Rudy Giuliani to change things, and Michael Bloomberg to keep the changes in place, and even improve upon them.
With the Republican Party is disarray, with the followers of Dick Cheney writing Colin Powell and his moderate followers out of the party, (and Powell standing up to them and promising to fight for control of the G.O.P.), Republican activists might rally round the anti-crime cause as one that can bring both wings of the party together. It was moderate Republicans like Giuliani, Bloomberg, George Pataki, Tom Kean, William Weld, and, yes, Nelson Rockefeller, who did their best to stand up to the leftist ethos, and were quite successful in turning the tide against crime. Their successes, which allowed the voting public to turn away from the crime issue, have made it possible for the Democrats to rout the G.O.P. in the northeast on issues such as the economy, abortion, and stem cell research. I don't want a new crime wave to be the harbinger of a Republican revival, but I fear that if we are not careful, and new crime wave is what we will get because of the mindset and the resulting legislative actions of Democrats in the northeast. If that occurs then all of us, Republican and Democrat, will be in trouble.
John Attanas
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ersatz Socialism
Did you hear? There is a new definition of Socialism making the rounds of leftist circles. According to Barbara Ehrenreich and Bill Fletcher, Jr. writing in the May 25th issue of The Nation socialism is “the human capacity to solve our common problems collectively in an egalitarian participatory and democratic fashion.” We all really have become socialists if this is the current definition. Even my colleague on this blog, John Attanas, who considers himself a moderate Republican, is now actually a socialist! By that definition Ron Paul, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and Nancy Pelosi are all socialists. Hell, I’ll bet Rush Limbaugh would even fit under a socialist tent that wide!
Excuse me, but I thought socialism was the collective ownership of the means of production and finance; the leveling of the economic divide; the elimination of the influence of money on our deliberative assemblies. We socialists have split again and again over the exact strategies to achieve these objectives, which has contributed to our electoral ineffectiveness, but never have we abandoned them.
Sorry Barbara and Bill. Webster has it right: “so-cial-ism – 1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Jonathan Fluck
Excuse me, but I thought socialism was the collective ownership of the means of production and finance; the leveling of the economic divide; the elimination of the influence of money on our deliberative assemblies. We socialists have split again and again over the exact strategies to achieve these objectives, which has contributed to our electoral ineffectiveness, but never have we abandoned them.
Sorry Barbara and Bill. Webster has it right: “so-cial-ism – 1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Jonathan Fluck
Friday, May 8, 2009
Peace & Nuclear Disarmament
For the past two years I have helped organized the New York Peace Film Festival with a partner (Yumi Tanaka) and through her contacts in Japan a media outlet sent me some questions for an article they're doing. Below are some of the questions and my answers.
1. Describe your objectives in starting the New York Peace Film Festival.
I support the peaceful resolution of conflicts, both on a personal level and in the international arena. Resorting to war in order to resolve conflict is rarely successful and usually creates as many problems as it ‘solves’. It certainly highlights the failure of diplomacy, but often that is because many issues left unattended for a long time fester into a rage that expresses itself in war. On a political level I believe our Department of State must have a much stronger ‘Department of Peace’ orientation—identifying and helping to resolve global problems between nations before they escalate into war.
Since I have no political clout, but do have a background in the arts, one way that I could advance the objective of the peaceful resolution of conflict was to join with Yumi Tanaka to organize the New York Peace Film Festival. By contrasting the horrors of war with the positive good of peacefully resolving conflicts and building person-to-person relationships across conflict zones, I hope to add my voice to a growing chorus of people demanding an end to wars and the wasteful military spending that deprives nations of capital needed to solve social problems.
2. Do you believe that President Obama’s Prague speech raised the awareness of the American public on the nuclear disarmament issue?
There is an old story of a traveler whose mule had stopped in the middle of the road and just wouldn’t budge, no matter how hard the owner tugged on the harness. An old farmer was walking by, and after assessing the problem pulled a cross post from a nearby fence, walked up to the mule and smacked it hard across the head with this heavy piece of wood. The dazed mule raised its head and looked into the eyes of the farmer. The farmer turned to the traveler and said: “first you have to get their attention.”
Today in America people are worried about their jobs, their mortgages, their 401-ks, their kids getting into the right schools, and a hundred other immediate concerns of life. We are finally recognizing the dangers of climate change but only after a decade of constant remonstrations about the seriousness of the situation. One speech by the president on nuclear disarmament, followed by no actions, is off the radar of the American public. Plus, the speech got very little air time here in the States.
3. What did you think of his speech?
I think the speech made good points, but unless it is followed by actions (real negotiable proposals to divest all parties of their nuclear weapons followed by diplomatic initiatives to pursue those proposals AND the accelerated decommissioning of our own overblown nuclear stockpile) it is just “a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” This president is great at making bold statements, but bad at following up with bold actions. We only have to look at the Wall Street serving bailout that followed the terrific rhetoric about ‘not rewarding the people and institutions that got us into this mess’ to see the huge gap between his rhetoric and actions. For those who still don’t want to believe me, just contrast Obama’s talk about a stimulus package that will ‘put America back to work’ and the anemic package that we got.
But the speech endorsed the continued development of nuclear energy in the guise of a way to combat climate change without addressing the nuclear waste problem; and the speech endorsed the Bush administration’s plans to place anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic which will only exacerbate tensions with Russia. Both of these are counterproductive to reducing the nuclear threat.
4. After Obama’s speech, did those in America (including you) who are fighting for nuclear abolition change their actions? How did they receive his speech?
Although his speech was welcomed in the peace community, we are all very skeptical that a real turn around is going to happen on this issue. There are no peace advocates on Obama’s security team; he is escalating the war in Afghanistan; he has extended the pull-out of Iraq for the maximum amount of time possible; he is not calling for the closure of even one of the 760 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and although he touts cutting military programs, spending on the military is actually continuing its upward spiral. I know of no peace or anti-nuclear organization that has altered its plans for advocacy based on this one speech. And they should not. In fact, we must redouble our efforts and put maximum pressure on Obama to follow-up in a timely and realistic manner on the positive proposals he did make for nuclear disarmament.
Jonathan Fluck
1. Describe your objectives in starting the New York Peace Film Festival.
I support the peaceful resolution of conflicts, both on a personal level and in the international arena. Resorting to war in order to resolve conflict is rarely successful and usually creates as many problems as it ‘solves’. It certainly highlights the failure of diplomacy, but often that is because many issues left unattended for a long time fester into a rage that expresses itself in war. On a political level I believe our Department of State must have a much stronger ‘Department of Peace’ orientation—identifying and helping to resolve global problems between nations before they escalate into war.
Since I have no political clout, but do have a background in the arts, one way that I could advance the objective of the peaceful resolution of conflict was to join with Yumi Tanaka to organize the New York Peace Film Festival. By contrasting the horrors of war with the positive good of peacefully resolving conflicts and building person-to-person relationships across conflict zones, I hope to add my voice to a growing chorus of people demanding an end to wars and the wasteful military spending that deprives nations of capital needed to solve social problems.
2. Do you believe that President Obama’s Prague speech raised the awareness of the American public on the nuclear disarmament issue?
There is an old story of a traveler whose mule had stopped in the middle of the road and just wouldn’t budge, no matter how hard the owner tugged on the harness. An old farmer was walking by, and after assessing the problem pulled a cross post from a nearby fence, walked up to the mule and smacked it hard across the head with this heavy piece of wood. The dazed mule raised its head and looked into the eyes of the farmer. The farmer turned to the traveler and said: “first you have to get their attention.”
Today in America people are worried about their jobs, their mortgages, their 401-ks, their kids getting into the right schools, and a hundred other immediate concerns of life. We are finally recognizing the dangers of climate change but only after a decade of constant remonstrations about the seriousness of the situation. One speech by the president on nuclear disarmament, followed by no actions, is off the radar of the American public. Plus, the speech got very little air time here in the States.
3. What did you think of his speech?
I think the speech made good points, but unless it is followed by actions (real negotiable proposals to divest all parties of their nuclear weapons followed by diplomatic initiatives to pursue those proposals AND the accelerated decommissioning of our own overblown nuclear stockpile) it is just “a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” This president is great at making bold statements, but bad at following up with bold actions. We only have to look at the Wall Street serving bailout that followed the terrific rhetoric about ‘not rewarding the people and institutions that got us into this mess’ to see the huge gap between his rhetoric and actions. For those who still don’t want to believe me, just contrast Obama’s talk about a stimulus package that will ‘put America back to work’ and the anemic package that we got.
But the speech endorsed the continued development of nuclear energy in the guise of a way to combat climate change without addressing the nuclear waste problem; and the speech endorsed the Bush administration’s plans to place anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic which will only exacerbate tensions with Russia. Both of these are counterproductive to reducing the nuclear threat.
4. After Obama’s speech, did those in America (including you) who are fighting for nuclear abolition change their actions? How did they receive his speech?
Although his speech was welcomed in the peace community, we are all very skeptical that a real turn around is going to happen on this issue. There are no peace advocates on Obama’s security team; he is escalating the war in Afghanistan; he has extended the pull-out of Iraq for the maximum amount of time possible; he is not calling for the closure of even one of the 760 U.S. military bases on foreign soil; and although he touts cutting military programs, spending on the military is actually continuing its upward spiral. I know of no peace or anti-nuclear organization that has altered its plans for advocacy based on this one speech. And they should not. In fact, we must redouble our efforts and put maximum pressure on Obama to follow-up in a timely and realistic manner on the positive proposals he did make for nuclear disarmament.
Jonathan Fluck
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Bankruptcy of both Parties
Didn’t we honestly suspect this all along? It is so easy to point the finger at the previous administration and the currently seated House and Senate Republicans as the culprits in the current financial and economic meltdown. But now we see behind-the-scenes action by Chris Dodd and the Obama administration to protect the obscene bonuses of the Wall Street insiders at AIG and other large financial institutions. Have you noticed that even with us, the taxpayers, owning an 80% interest in AIG and having “invested” more than the total market value of the entire stock portfolio in Citigroup that top management (who presided over this meltdown) has not been fired—even though there are thousands of Wall Street executives out of work and begging for a job?
Remember the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited banks from offering investment, commercial banking and insurance services? It was repealed during the previous Democratic administration. And ‘off-the-books’ accounting slight of hand for banks was promulgated during that same administration. And when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission tried to exert some regulatory control over financial derivatives, that was quashed by Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan—again before the disastrous Bush reign. Oh, and don’t forget the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Although orchestrated by Republican Phil Gramm, it was signed into law by President Clinton.
I won’t enumerate the sins of the Bush reign—they are far too numerous—because I want to emphasize that between 1998 and 2008 the financial sector spent 5 billion dollars on U.S. federal campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures. And those campaign contributions were evenly spread among Republican AND Democratic candidates. Equal opportunity bribery. And the American taxpayer gets screwed.
Both parties are now bought and paid for by the bankers, the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. Is it any wonder that we can’t have a real debate about burying zombie banks, single-payer health care, or even letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for drugs?
On a recent visit one of my brother-in-laws who is much more conservative than Mr. Attanas even (he would not call himself a MODERATE Republican) said, unsolicited I want to emphasize, that he now thinks we need to have public financing of all elections. The corrupting influence of big money is now so blatantly obvious that, hopefully, we have the impetus to make important structural changes in our electoral system. But have you noticed? Electoral reform is not even on a BACK burner!
Public financing is only one step. We have to remove the stranglehold that both major parties have on the electoral process, through prohibitive ballot access laws, heavily gerrymandered electoral districts, and by excluding third party candidates from debates and forums. Now that both major parties have shown themselves to be devoid of any concern for struggling Americans, we need viable choices outside the box of ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’.
Jonathan Fluck
Remember the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited banks from offering investment, commercial banking and insurance services? It was repealed during the previous Democratic administration. And ‘off-the-books’ accounting slight of hand for banks was promulgated during that same administration. And when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission tried to exert some regulatory control over financial derivatives, that was quashed by Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan—again before the disastrous Bush reign. Oh, and don’t forget the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Although orchestrated by Republican Phil Gramm, it was signed into law by President Clinton.
I won’t enumerate the sins of the Bush reign—they are far too numerous—because I want to emphasize that between 1998 and 2008 the financial sector spent 5 billion dollars on U.S. federal campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures. And those campaign contributions were evenly spread among Republican AND Democratic candidates. Equal opportunity bribery. And the American taxpayer gets screwed.
Both parties are now bought and paid for by the bankers, the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. Is it any wonder that we can’t have a real debate about burying zombie banks, single-payer health care, or even letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for drugs?
On a recent visit one of my brother-in-laws who is much more conservative than Mr. Attanas even (he would not call himself a MODERATE Republican) said, unsolicited I want to emphasize, that he now thinks we need to have public financing of all elections. The corrupting influence of big money is now so blatantly obvious that, hopefully, we have the impetus to make important structural changes in our electoral system. But have you noticed? Electoral reform is not even on a BACK burner!
Public financing is only one step. We have to remove the stranglehold that both major parties have on the electoral process, through prohibitive ballot access laws, heavily gerrymandered electoral districts, and by excluding third party candidates from debates and forums. Now that both major parties have shown themselves to be devoid of any concern for struggling Americans, we need viable choices outside the box of ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’.
Jonathan Fluck
Monday, March 16, 2009
Introduction
What's a moderate Republican to do? The Democrats hold the House and the Senate, won back the White House with a candidate that some supporters liken to a figure from the Bible, and have more support in the press than they've had in any recent time period (a truly amazing accomplishment). And at the same time the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, T.R., Eisenhower, and Reagan has become something akin to a national embarrassment. In a time of national hypertension over the economy, the Republican Party has become the party of nostalgia and negativity. If you doubt me, just replay Governor Bobby Jindal's reply to President Obama's speech to Congress. Jindal is a Rhodes Scholar, but he sounded more like a worker on a road crew with his complaints about too much government and wasteful spending. This is old thinking, and if the Republican Party is going to make a comeback before, say, 2020, party leaders have to take one, two, or even three steps back and see that the old time Republican religion does not work in a time when taxpayers are legitimately afraid about their jobs and their savings. Hard line conservatism is no longer viable during this Great Recession, and Republican candidates should take lessons from some of the smart Democratic House and Senate candidates who ran in toss-up districts and states in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and tack toward the center if they are going to have shots at winning in 2010 and 2012.
I have been a Republican since I came to understand the history of the Republican Party. My mother was a staunch Republican, and she told me of the party's leading role in the fight against slavery, the party's belief in invididuals, its suspicion of group politics, and its belief in our nation, without apologies or exceptions. Yet, being a Republican was to possess a hard luck political gene. I say "hard luck" because I grew up in, and still live in, that most left wing and most parochial of cities: New York City. In New York it has long been the case that in politics what matters is whether you have a "D" or and "R" next to your name. If it is a "D" you are a saint. If it is an "R" you are an unrepentant sinner, never to be allowed into the political heaven that is the home to such greats as F.D.R., Al Smith, and, in Manhattan at least, Alger Hiss. The other side of parochial New York politics stems from the phrase, "What can you do for me?" Although the days of Tammany Hall are long gone, the spirit of Tammany still lives in the hearts of many countless New Yorkers, nearly all of them Democrats. And why not? Democratic Party politicians control nearly all but a few offices in the five boroughs, so if a hard working tax payer wants a favor he/she needs to contact the party of F.D.R., not the party of T.R. But until recent years moderate Republican politicians held offices in states throughout the northeast and upper midwest. A few still do. It is for the the supporters of these hardworking, often beleagured office holders that I write this blog.
To be a moderate in the Republican Party in 2009 is to be an outsider. And perhaps that's a good thing, considering who the insiders are. Ironically, President Obama is something of an outsider in his own party. He ran against the Democratic establishment when he ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996 (and won). He was an outsider when he ran for Congress in 2000 (and lost). He won a hard fought primary for the Democratic Senate nomination in 2004, and was not supported by most party insiders in the early stages of his presidential run. In fact, Obama may the the biggest outsider to get the Democratic nomination since Jimmy Carter. I am not saying that Obama is a closet moderate, or that Republicans should support him on many issues. An opposition party should generally oppose the party in power. But that opposition should be creative, and, especially in troubled times, flexible. We must understand that Obama is popular, and that the Democratic establishment is piggybacking off of him. In either four or eight years there will be a new president. But the permanent Democratic Party, well represented by such men as David Obey, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and John Dingell (the poster boy for term limits, with fifty-three years of taxing, regulating, and expropriating to his credit) will still be there. If Republicans present moderate, creative, and forward looking ideas, we may make a swift comeback, and put these Democratic drones out to pasture permanently. If we don't, troubled times will face us for a long time to come.
John Attanas
I have been a Republican since I came to understand the history of the Republican Party. My mother was a staunch Republican, and she told me of the party's leading role in the fight against slavery, the party's belief in invididuals, its suspicion of group politics, and its belief in our nation, without apologies or exceptions. Yet, being a Republican was to possess a hard luck political gene. I say "hard luck" because I grew up in, and still live in, that most left wing and most parochial of cities: New York City. In New York it has long been the case that in politics what matters is whether you have a "D" or and "R" next to your name. If it is a "D" you are a saint. If it is an "R" you are an unrepentant sinner, never to be allowed into the political heaven that is the home to such greats as F.D.R., Al Smith, and, in Manhattan at least, Alger Hiss. The other side of parochial New York politics stems from the phrase, "What can you do for me?" Although the days of Tammany Hall are long gone, the spirit of Tammany still lives in the hearts of many countless New Yorkers, nearly all of them Democrats. And why not? Democratic Party politicians control nearly all but a few offices in the five boroughs, so if a hard working tax payer wants a favor he/she needs to contact the party of F.D.R., not the party of T.R. But until recent years moderate Republican politicians held offices in states throughout the northeast and upper midwest. A few still do. It is for the the supporters of these hardworking, often beleagured office holders that I write this blog.
To be a moderate in the Republican Party in 2009 is to be an outsider. And perhaps that's a good thing, considering who the insiders are. Ironically, President Obama is something of an outsider in his own party. He ran against the Democratic establishment when he ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996 (and won). He was an outsider when he ran for Congress in 2000 (and lost). He won a hard fought primary for the Democratic Senate nomination in 2004, and was not supported by most party insiders in the early stages of his presidential run. In fact, Obama may the the biggest outsider to get the Democratic nomination since Jimmy Carter. I am not saying that Obama is a closet moderate, or that Republicans should support him on many issues. An opposition party should generally oppose the party in power. But that opposition should be creative, and, especially in troubled times, flexible. We must understand that Obama is popular, and that the Democratic establishment is piggybacking off of him. In either four or eight years there will be a new president. But the permanent Democratic Party, well represented by such men as David Obey, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and John Dingell (the poster boy for term limits, with fifty-three years of taxing, regulating, and expropriating to his credit) will still be there. If Republicans present moderate, creative, and forward looking ideas, we may make a swift comeback, and put these Democratic drones out to pasture permanently. If we don't, troubled times will face us for a long time to come.
John Attanas
Monday, March 2, 2009
Where am I coming from?
Though my friends find it hard to believe, I started out a Young Republican! I jest that it was Richard Nixon and Watergate that turned me into a Commie! Once I saw that the gods had feet of clay, I began questioning everything. And so I turned from capitalism and embraced a democratic socialist perspective; I turned from military engagement and embraced diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of conflicts; I turned from a foreign policy that actively enforced our (especially economic) way of life on the world and embraced a much less invasive (and much less profitable) engagement in the world; I even left Evangelical Christianity to attend Quaker Meeting! I came to believe very strongly that the influence of money and those with money subvert our democratic process. As our society has matured the only bulwark against the overwhelming interests of those with money is our elected government and truly grassroots organizations, in which I include labor unions.
But now that Obama is president I should be happy, right? Well, no. As glad that I am that Bush & Cheney no longer steer the ship of state, I am already not particularly pleased with a host of appointments and policy decisions of this new administration. That will become apparent as I blog throughout this year. Or just reading my two January posts will verify that!
I believe that both Democrats and Republican are so tied to corporate money that they can no longer respond to the needs of ordinary people. The only difference between them is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when the lobbyists enter the room. This is no where better exemplified than in the attempted solutions to the financial meltdown, the collapse of our economy, the inability to craft a rational health care system for the nation, the refusal to reign in exploding military spending, and the almost 9,000 earmarks in the budget bill that recently passed the Senate.
I obviously stand no where near the center of the political spectrum. Although a New Yorker for the last 30 years, my views are not well represented by anyone in the New York Congressional delegation. Bernie Sanders most closely represents me in the Senate, and Dennis Kucinich in the House. That gives you a pointer to where I stand on issues. And I cannot think of ANYONE in Albany that represents my views; certainly not my State rep, Joan Millman, or my State senator, Velmanette Montgomery both of whom resemble Democratic Party hacks.
But pointing the finger at people who successfully game the system smacks of sour grapes, though it is necessary to make a point and show the the overall corruption of the system.
More important, I believe, is nurturing alternative voices and opening up our process to perspectives not sanctioned by Democrats OR Republicans: Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists. Through restrictive ballot access laws, district gerrymandering, and two party collusion, all of which distorts a level playing field, these alternative voices are not given a fair hearing when campaigning for public office. And so I heartily endorse those who attempt to open up the system and, through this blog, hope to add my voice to that effort.
Jonathan Fluck
But now that Obama is president I should be happy, right? Well, no. As glad that I am that Bush & Cheney no longer steer the ship of state, I am already not particularly pleased with a host of appointments and policy decisions of this new administration. That will become apparent as I blog throughout this year. Or just reading my two January posts will verify that!
I believe that both Democrats and Republican are so tied to corporate money that they can no longer respond to the needs of ordinary people. The only difference between them is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when the lobbyists enter the room. This is no where better exemplified than in the attempted solutions to the financial meltdown, the collapse of our economy, the inability to craft a rational health care system for the nation, the refusal to reign in exploding military spending, and the almost 9,000 earmarks in the budget bill that recently passed the Senate.
I obviously stand no where near the center of the political spectrum. Although a New Yorker for the last 30 years, my views are not well represented by anyone in the New York Congressional delegation. Bernie Sanders most closely represents me in the Senate, and Dennis Kucinich in the House. That gives you a pointer to where I stand on issues. And I cannot think of ANYONE in Albany that represents my views; certainly not my State rep, Joan Millman, or my State senator, Velmanette Montgomery both of whom resemble Democratic Party hacks.
But pointing the finger at people who successfully game the system smacks of sour grapes, though it is necessary to make a point and show the the overall corruption of the system.
More important, I believe, is nurturing alternative voices and opening up our process to perspectives not sanctioned by Democrats OR Republicans: Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists. Through restrictive ballot access laws, district gerrymandering, and two party collusion, all of which distorts a level playing field, these alternative voices are not given a fair hearing when campaigning for public office. And so I heartily endorse those who attempt to open up the system and, through this blog, hope to add my voice to that effort.
Jonathan Fluck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)